https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=56690 Development rebate was available on machinery installed and brought into use during the relevant previous year, even though depreciation had not earlier been allowed, and the exact quantum remained for verification by the Income-tax Officer. Cotton yarn manufacturing was treated as manufacture of textiles because Item 32 of the Fifth Schedule expressly includes cotton yarn. Applying the rule that a taxing provision reasonably capable of two interpretations must be construed in favour of the assessee, the higher 35% development rebate under Section 33(1)(b)(B) was held applicable. en-us Thu, 17 Aug 1978 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Dec 2010 13:24:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=56690 Development rebate was available on machinery installed and brought into use during the relevant previous year, even though depreciation had not earlier been allowed, and the exact quantum remained for verification by the Income-tax Officer. Cotton yarn manufacturing was treated as manufacture of textiles because Item 32 of the Fifth Schedule expressly includes cotton yarn. Applying the rule that a taxing provision reasonably capable of two interpretations must be construed in favour of the assessee, the higher 35% development rebate under Section 33(1)(b)(B) was held applicable. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 17 Aug 1978 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=56690